Why is it uncool....

Why is it uncool to like a band once they have made it big?

I notice alot of peoples attitudes change towards a band once they make it into the charts or start playing bigger venues etc...

Any thoughts?

 

agreed. . .Oasis being a prime example. . .I still love them !!

 

i think with a lot of people it becomes that , you lose the ability to see them in a intimate venue, there songs are over played so you become annoyed with them, sometimes the songs become more commercial, you hear drunk neds singing there songs and it just ruins it for you, wether this be intentional by the artist or not, sadly it happens

 

being an unsigned indie band is 'cool' these days, Pigeon Detectives (*!?!) are a good example, they are less cool since they went big.

 

Great point. Nothing worse than pretentious * slagging you because you enjoy a popular band.

Music taste is a personal thing. What works for you might not float someone else's boat, but there's no wrong or right.

 

I'm inclined to disagree with you there mate. 'Only By The Night' is easily their weakest album, and people who previously would never have given them a second listen are now harping on about them like they're the best thing since sliced bread.

Noel Gallagher still maintains that 'Definitely Maybe' is the best Oasis album and I agree. 'What's The Story' sold more and sent Oasis' popularity into the stratosphere, but as an album, it's not as good as DM.

Sales and popularity can't ever be used as an indication of quality.

 

Most people are digging Kings Of Leon now because of over-exposure on daytime radio, possibly the last place anyone should be looking if they're interested in seeking out fresh, dynamic new music.

Awards shows like the Grammys and the Brits are nothing more than music industry back-slapping exercises, an annual celebration of quantity over quality. I didn't see anyone getting in a tizzy about the Kings Of Leon at the Mercury Music Prize awards.

They're headling festivals because the organisers know they'll get rid of their tickets. It's got nothing to do with music, it's all about the hard sell. There's still talk of Kylie playing Glastonbury FFS.

There is so much good music out there but it's being stifled by the bandwagons that surround groups like KOL, Killers etc.

 

I'm afraid i was a huge KOL fan a few years ago, now i can't stand what they put out.

It's not because they've become popular but because their music style has changed radically between each album release.

YaYM is a masterpiece for me - dirty, gritty, idontgiveafucky type hippie, stoner, rock. It was fantastic. And back then they give of the aura of people you want to play poker and get drunk with.

Aha Shake was not bad, some cracking songs but a change in style to softer more melodic tunes was obvious. Then came BotT. Bollocks. This wasn't the same KOL that i listened to years before. This was an album full of stadium tracks aimed to make the top 10 charts, not to rock the * out to.

And the new stuff? * on Fire is admittedly not a bad song, but it's not a song i want to hear when i stick on a Kings album. I'm not accusing them of selling-out or whatever but they have changed for the worse IMO, no matter what the sales records may suggest.

I was at my girlfriends, mums, friends 50th birthday party 56, when * on Fire came on, a bunch of middle aged ladies jumped up and squealed "Oo i love this song!". I was scundered. And rightly or wrongly - * off! That's not rock'n'roll and neither are KOL anymore.

I won't be buying another album of theirs.

(Wow, thats a lot of pent up anger at KOL! )

 

An example i'd use would be Razorlight, there was so much hype when Up All Night came out, at that point they were unknown. When their 2nd album came out and America became big most people turned on them.

I blame NME for alot of it, they hype so many bands like Arctic Monkeys and Glasvegas etc...(personally i still dont get Arctic Monkeys)
So many people base their opinions on what they read in NME so when NME writers turn on a band for becoming to mainstream, their readers will follow.

 

You mean to tell me that the stuff that by and large is churned out on daytime radio isn't *? Have you heard 'Just Can't Get Enough' by The Saturdays, or anything by Katy Perry?
Daytime radio is the barometer by which most people who spend hardly any time on music judge music.

Kings Of Leon were top notch long before Only By The Night. 'Music Afficionados' as you like to term them were turned on to Kings Of Leon when most people were turning a blind eye to them.

Popularity, eh?

Celine Dion - 175 million album sales
Barry Manilow - 76 million album sales
Chris De Burgh - 40 million album sales
Margaret Thatcher - 3 terms in office
Geroge W Bush - 2 terms in office

Cool?

 

The thing is, MOST bands' talent and originality do start to decline the longer they go on. I don't think it's about it being 'uncool' it's just that if a band come out with a blinding album that's got a bite to it a lot of the time it doesn't really see the light of day as far as the mainstream chart music scene goes. That appeals to lot of people, myself included, but your allowed to fall out of love with a band because you like their music less and less rather than thinking oh their no cool anymore.

Oasis perfect example. That band changed my life and although every album they brought out after Definitely Maybe had songs i loved, as a band they just weren't the same. Most people will dismiss their most recent album because it's Oasis, but actually if you give it the time of day it's a * terrific album, their best since their debut imo.

 

Some bands become big simply because they're too good to ignore (Led Zep, Pink Floyd, Springsteen etc.), some have to change their style in order to appeal to a wide audience. Record companies know what is required to sell albums and they pressurise their bands to make commercially appealing music.
The Stone Roses, The Smiths and Joy Division are widely regarded as some of the finest and most influential bands to come from Britain, yet their album sales were modest at best. Does this mean their music wasn't all that good?

The biggest Reggae artist of all time is Bob Marley, far and away the most commercially successful of any in that genre. Ask any Reggae fan if they think that Bob Marley is the best that Reggae music can offer and they'll laugh in your face.

Alexandra Burke sold obscene amounts of copies of her cover of Leonard Cohen's 'Hallelujah'. Does this mean that it is any better than any of the many other versions? (Most people would agree that it's an abomination)

I could go on, but you get my point.

 

mercury music prize is for british bands only

i think with KOL it has alot to do with their image,alot of women i know only like them and want to go to their gigs because they are "hot"........this might sound daft but i dont think they would be as popular if they still had the long hair and beards

 

i hate that especially reading there comments on youtube. they alays go on about how bands like kings of leon used to be good but now that everyone likes them they dont anymore its stupid lak. i also dont like all this stuff about people going on about bands selling out because they do more commercial stuff or whatever. i say let them do whatever they want

 

Spot on Mate
I said almost the same thing in a thread a while back. I knew they were on the slippery slope to success when girls in my work were talking about Calebs haircut !

For me the only exception to this popularity rule is The Stone Roses.

Immensely popular and critically acclaimed !!

 

To put this very simply, you shouldn't give a * about what's cool and what isn't. Listen to music that you like and tell anyone who disagrees where to go. Music is about personal enjoyment, it's got * all to do with being cool. Anyone who thinks listening to music is about being cool needs to get to grips with reality.